In order to comply with the requirements of the Berkeley Independent, we post the following link:
http://www.berkeleyind.com/

County checking properties for reassessment

Published Monday, July 23, 2012 4:53 PM

By Dan Brown
Berkeley Independent

Berkeley County Tax Assessor Wilson Baggett wants to reassure county residents who may have spotted county employees in their neighborhoods and around their homes recently.

There is nothing out of the ordinary going on, he said, just representatives from his department surveying all county property in preparation for the upcoming tax reassessment.

“Real Property Services appraisers are reviewing all properties in Berkeley County for the 2014 reassessment program,” Baggett said. “State laws require each county to reassess every five years.”

Berkeley County last reassessed in 2009.

“To assure our records are accurate, appraisers from Berkeley County will be visiting all properties over the next 12 to 15 months,” he said.

Baggett added that the goal of his office is to prepare an accurate appraisal.

“It’s important for county taxpayers to know that accuracy of the appraisal is what we’re after,” he said. “Our records are five years old and it’s important in terms of coming to an accurate appraisal that we visually inspect each property.”

County appraisers will be properly identified by wearing a county ID badge with photo that is visible on their clothing. They will be driving a county car with a visible county seal.

“In performing a thorough review of your property, the appraiser may need to measure the exterior of your home or buildings located on the property and take photos,”

Baggett said. He added that his appraisers are some of the nicest people he knows.

“They are polite and willing to help,” he said. “We had one appraiser during the recent heat wave stop and help an individual overcome by the heat, even giving up her own bottle of water to make sure this person was okay.”

Baggett apologized for any inconvenience these appraisals may cause and appreciates residents understanding.    END  OF ARTICLE






Golly, that sounds all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it?  Well, before you let the fox into your henhouse, it might be to your benefit to know the rest of the story.  This upcoming reassessment is a very unique situation, so please be patient and we will try to make it as clear as possible.


Before posting this blog, we have done extensive research.  We have looked at the process involved in former reassessments in Berkeley County, spoken at length to county employees with first hand knowledge of this process and, more importantly, consulted with professional sources about the activity of the real estate market over the last 5 years.  We have learned some very interesting facts.


Everyone knows that assessed value for property tax purposes is supposed to be derived from the benchmark of market value.  When the market value of your property increases, your tax liability on the property goes up at reassessment.  If the increased market value is excessive, the County is restricted from increasing taxes more than the percentage (15%) allowed by State Law. However, the County can increase property taxes up to that point.  As we have all seen over the years, our property taxes have tended to only increase.  


When the state legislature removed school support from our primary residence property taxes, our tax bills went down markedly.   However, since that time, these lower tax bills have steadily, for a long list of "reasons", crept ever upward.  As the real estate market bubble expanded, property values increased and higher property tax bills inevitably followed. County governments, such as Berkeley, delighted in the increased revenue and, of course, found places to spend the extra funds. We have all suffered under this scenario. 


Well, now it seems the worm has turned.  Over the last several years, the real estate market has experienced a reversal of fortune.  According to official sources, both national and local, the value of real property has been depressed by an average of 30% during this time period.  Since there is no prescribed limit on the DECREASE of assessed value, as there is for any increase, this situation could be extremely problematic for the revenue flows of any government entity, such as Berkeley County. Our County government has made no provisions for a down-turn, instead, spending our money like the proverbial drunken sailor. (No disrespect intended to the drunken sailors in the crowd)   


Since Berkeley County depends heavily on the collection of property taxes to fund not only vital County services but a myriad of pet projects, any decline in the amount of revenue would be viewed as potentially disastrous. Let us revise that:  Without any revisions in the spending habits of our County government, any decline in revenue WILL BE disastrous.  


Now that our County government has pulled it's proverbial head from the sand and realized the inevitability of the situation, what do think their first move would be?  We can answer that without any reservations. THEY DECIDED TO TAKE THE CROOKED WAY OUT.  Judging from our research, this seems to be a rough outline of their plan:

• MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO INFLATE BASIC PROPERTY VALUE

We have not been able to find any prior example of the Assessor's office EVER undertaking the project of physically measuring and photographing EVERY property in the County for a single reassessment.  Historically, assessments have been based on benchmark values (some that go back 40 years or more) and on the ongoing yearly changes in the real estate market.  When improvements and/or additions are made to the property, these changes are reflected in the assessed value and, in turn, in the tax bills.  Over the next year and a half, the assessor's office says it will measure each and every one of the 100,000 buildings in the County in order to verify value for reassessment purposes.  And, from our research, we understand that all employees are aware that under measuring a house by only an inch is justification for termination.

• ISSUE TAX BILLS COMPARABLE TO PRIOR ASSESSMENTS 

It is almost incomprehensible but there is a multitude of taxpayers who don't ever question a property tax bill.  They receive the bill, grumble a bit, and simply write the check.  In 2014, after reassessment, Berkeley County government is hoping against hope that this remains the case.  Otherwise, they stand to lose 30 % of OUR money.  Since the decline in the real estate market is a fact, if taxpayers react in their customary manner, Berkeley County will get away with stealing millions from the property owners of the County.

This is a good juncture to list the reason why Berkeley County government claims to need ALL of this 30%.  To hear the Supervisor tell it, any reduction in the revenue stream would break the back of County government.  If such a reduction should happen, the results would be: 

• The citizens could no longer have any police protection. 
• The citizens could have no fire protection.
• Even the most necessary County services could disappear.
• Public water and sewer could stop flowing.
• County employees could be terminated in droves. 
• Consequently,  the world could stop turning.

But, when you educate yourself to the real facts, a quite different picture comes into focus.  No one would argue that police, fire and other services are needed.  In fact, we would go so far as to say some of these services are underfunded as it is BUT operation of these services is NOT our problem.  If it becomes necessary to operate the County with less revenue, might we suggest that Mr. Davis consider the following:

• Stop building waterlines that cost $2.4 MILLION and serve less than 10 households.
• Stop buying swampland for the Dan Davis Health and Human Services Campus that costs $1.6 MILLION for the land alone. The buildings would add another $20 MILLION.
• Stop playing musical chairs with the government offices in Moncks Corner.
• Stop building roads to increase the value of land the County plans to buy at inflated prices.
• Stop building new libraries in towns where even the Mayor says it's a waste of money.
• Stop operating waterlines where MILLIONS of gallons of drinking water have to be dumped to keep the water drinkable.
• Stop spending MILLIONS of dollars on consultants for everything under the sun.  If you don't know how to do the job you were elected to do, QUIT.
• Stop squirreling away MILLIONS of dollars in the budgets of the various departments "in case you might need it".
• Stop hiring people you don't need, to head programs you can't define, funded with money you don't have, namely, SWMP.
• Stop spending money on your Economic Development schemes as if we are in the middle of an economic boom.  WE'RE NOT.
• Stop growing government.

This upcoming situation, with the reduction of revenue from property taxes, is a golden opportunity for our County government to rein in the wasteful spending and shrink the size of our County government.  This January, there will be 5 Conservative members on County Council. We will expect these 5 to address this issue and act accordingly.  Stop trying to convince the taxpayers that our money is being spent wisely when the waste is as obvious as the nose on your face.  Address the vital needs of the County and stop outspending your revenue stream.  Just for a change, handle the taxpayers' money as frugally as you do your own family budgets. 

This October we will receive our property tax bills for 2013.  Next October we will receive the first bill post reassessment.  Grits, Eggs, and Politics would encourage all property owners to examine these bills carefully.  Compare the 2013 bill to the one you got in 2012.  AND, especially compare the 2014 bill to the 2013 bill.  If the 2014 bill is not considerably less than the 2013 bill, APPEAL.  We will post the simple instructions for a successful appeal on a later blog.  

GUEST POST

The tax payers in Berkeley County District 7 and District 8 and some of the tax payers in Districts 3, 5 and 6 should take note.

The budget was approved on June 29 but as surely as the sun came up this morning one of the next items on the BC agenda will be the revision of the Storm Water Management Ordinance establishing a fee on the backs of the taxpayers in the unincorporated areas of this county. These taxpayers can thank the Council Representatives from Districts 7 and 8, and while you are thanking them include the Council Representatives from Districts 3 and 6.

Last September the supervisor placed a $36.00 Storm Water fee on the tax bills without Council’s knowledge and certainly without their approval, and the tax bills had been printed for mailing. This fee would have brought in $1.4 million dollars to fund the Department and the permit requirements, he said. When council was made aware of this addition to the tax bills, the supervisor “was prepared” he said, to lower the amount to $12.00 per taxpayer in the unincorporated areas. The fee was denied and at that time Council Representatives from Districts 7 and 8 voted against the fee.

The supervisor continues to say the Storm Water Department is unfunded and this year’s budget doubles the amount of the 2011-2012 budget. Does that mean he shall double the amount of the fee he proposed last year. He has the time to accomplish the fee scheme; ordinances require three months (three readings) for adoption. The tax bills are typically mailed in October. Just wait Berkeley County, the fee is coming.

Perhaps the real question may be, how many times can one be surprised and/or shocked at the actions taken by persons elected by the voters/tax payers in this county to represent us???

WE WERE WRONG

After attending the reorganization of Council meeting in 2011, we thought we had witnessed the most egregiously corrupt and dishonest activity possible for this administration.  WE WERE WRONG.

We attended the Special County Council meeting this morning and the activities we witnessed are almost beyond belief. If we weren't already aware of the depth of the corruption in our County government, we would think this episode was simply a nightmare.  Unfortunately, it was all too true.

This saga began at last Monday night's Council meeting.  Purely by mistake, Steve Davis, one of DD's coalition, lost his mind, did the right thing, and voted in the taxpayers' favor by rejecting the 2012/2013 budget.  Being as this mis-step left the ball in DD's court, we fully expected ramifications for this Councilman.  Maybe he was reminded that his new courthouse was not yet built or that his other perks for supporting DD's agenda were yet unrealized.  Whatever the provocation,  Mr. Davis became aware  he had pooped and stepped backwards in it so he decided he wanted to change his vote.

The administration saw the benefit in this change of heart but they realized the mechanics of rectifying this situation would be problematic.  Standing squarely in the path of fixing this unforeseen miscue were those pesky little things called RULES.  Easy solution: LIE.

First, there is a Rule that states: "The motion to reconsider allows county council to debate whether or not to overturn a decision made at the meeting that is in progress or at the immediately preceding meeting; provided, however, that third reading to an Ordinance may be reconsidered only at the same meeting in which the third reading was adopted.  Most intelligent people translate this phrase in the spirit in which it is meant and realize it should be interpreted as meaning "if FINAL ACTION was taken on an Ordinance".  But, BC's esteemed legal council latched onto the word "adopted" and ruled that, because the Ordinance was, in fact, not passed, this Rule didn't apply.  This argument, undeniably, was a stretch. Coincidentally, one of the authors of these Rules vehemently disagrees with the legal council's opinion as to the context of this Rule.

BUT, the next Rule leaves absolutely no wiggle room.  "If and when any one member of County Council objects to any item which is brought up for discussion and which has not been placed on or specifically identified on the official agenda, then that item will not be discussed at that meeting."  DD and the rest of his band of merry men knew very well that they intended to introduce a "Motion to Reconsider" when they scheduled this meeting but the Agenda did not reflect that intention.  The only item on today's agenda was "2012-2013 Budget".  There was no mention of the "Continuing Resolution" or the "Motion to Reconsider".  These people knew they were going to perpetrate this fraud before they started the meeting.  They assumed the vague, generalized agenda item would provide them cover for any and all activity.  That has not turned out to be the case.

There is a distinct possibility that this corrupt government has pushed the envelope to the breaking point this time.  Even people with very limited knowledge of the workings of government can understand what has happened.  Even these political novices are outraged. Our phones have been ringing off the hook.  We are amazed and heartened at just how rapidly the word is spreading.  It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.

BUDGET ISSUES ARE SO SIMPLE

If all we know about this year's failed Berkeley County budget was explained in today's Post and Courier article, wouldn't our life be simple?  Unfortunately, that is not a fact.  We continue to marvel at the ability of our local news media to repeatedly miss the point.  In today's article, the reporter seemed to think the inability of Berkeley County government to meet its obligation to Trident Tech was the only reason this budget failed. Well, with all due respect, there were many other unresolved issues that contributed to this debacle.

• One Councilman took offense at the fact that this administration wanted to more than double the funding for the Storm Water Management Program without any legitimate justification. One Councilman was thinking far enough ahead to know, if the increase in the SWMP was allowed to stand, in short order, a FEE would surely be imposed on the taxpayers of the unincorporated areas.
• Another Councilman didn't like the idea that over a MILLION DOLLARS was in one department's budget as a "place holder". Another $200,000 was in another department's budget "in case we need it".
• A number of Councilmen took offense that over TWO MILLION DOLLARS of appropriations was scattered throughout the departments, quoting no justification at all. 
• Some Councilmen disagreed with the fact that, in this budget, the Fund Balance exceeded its optimal 15% by over 9 % because the Supervisor "has plans for that money".
• Being as there were so many MILLIONS of dollars just floating around this budget, several Councilmen wanted the 29% of the confiscated property tax relief returned to the taxpayers.

Long and short of it, the FY 2012/2013 proposed budget for Berkeley County government was a disgrace.  MILLIONS of TAXPAYER DOLLARS were hidden in every crack and cranny throughout the document. Justifications for expenditures were laughable.  

This administration attempted to pull a fast one with this proposed budget. First, they provided Council members with a disk version instead of a hard copy.  When one tried to access the information on this disk, the documents appeared sideways on the screen.  Since the version provided no means of rotating the documents, one would have had to recline in order to read them. But, no one anticipated the fact that one nosey taxpayer would foot the bill to obtain a printed copy for analysis. 

Then, the administration orchestrated a dog and pony show in lieu of real "budget work shops".  This theatrical event presented only information that was favorable to the administration and denied information to Council members that would have generated the opportunity to ask specific questions about questionable issues. The "questionable issues" were conveniently avoided.  Then came the "readings".  During the discussion periods, damning information began to be exposed. It was painful to watch and listen as each morsel of "truth" was slowly extracted from reluctant members of the administration.

Finally, at Third Reading, an accurate picture of this administration's intent came into focus and the majority of the  members of County Council were not favorably impressed.  "NO", we do not want to continue to inflate the Fund Balance.  "NO", we do not want to increase the budget for the SWMP with no justification.  "NO", we do not want to demand that our constituents pay a new FEE in a few months. "NO", we do not agree with padding the budgets of all the County departments.  "NO", we refuse to violate our commitment to Trident Tech. "NO", we refuse to buy this pig in a poke.

We would like to thank the brave members of County Council who exercised their legal duty to the taxpayers of Berkeley County and voted "NO" to this monstrosity.  

NOTE:  Our special raspberry awards go to Mr. Call, Mr. Schurlknight, and Mr. Pinckney for voting FOR this document. 

WHAT WILL BE THE COST?

We started to just put an "update" on the previous post but decided the issue was too HUGE for that.  But, fear not, this post will be short and sweet.  Although the main issue is quite serious, the facts are painfully simple.  Ken Gunn handily won the election yesterday.  He unseated incumbent County Councilman, Bob Call.  In effect, this development completely dismantles Supervisor Davis' system of "One Man Rule" in Berkeley County. Come January, there will be 5 Conservative votes on Council which will put an end to Mr. Davis' coalition.  The days of shady deals, useless purchases, and wasteful spending will come to an end.  This will, definitely, be a good thing for the taxpayers of Berkeley County.

BUT, (as usual) it will NOT be a good thing for the people who have fought so hard to protect and maintain Mr. Davis' corrupt administration. Now that the taxpayers have recognized and corrected an integral part of the problem, these enablers will eventually be culled out and fall by the wayside of Berkeley County history.  We would strongly suggest that the offenders NOT be allowed to jump the fence AGAIN in an attempt to maintain their power and positions.

The saddest part of this drama is that the Mayor of Goose Creek has willingly sacrificed his integrity and reputation to this lost cause.  Unlike the other players in this debacle who had very little in these areas to lose in the first place, the Mayor had a lot to lose and did.  But, as most politicians are want to do, this morning the Mayor is probably assuring himself that this "little controversy" will blow over shortly.  People will forget. He most assuredly thinks, if he just keeps his head down, lets a little time pass, and then makes the first move toward "making nice" with the new controlling element in January, all will be well for him.

(Another) "BUT", that is one more thing that is NOT going to happen.  We will see to that. We would like to assure the Mayor that we fully intend to educate ourselves on ALL dealings between Goose Creek and the County.  We WILL know all the "whys" and "wherefores".  We WILL watch for ANY inconsistencies. And, we WILL make public any questionable dealing from here on in. Mr. Mayor, we want you to take comfort in the fact that you have achieved a prominent position on our SOB (sweet old bob) list and we are sure you're savvy enough to recognize what the eventual outcome of this will be.

If we could be allowed to give one morsel of advice (and warning) to the Mayor of Goose Creek, it would be simple:  TAKE A LESSON FROM YESTERDAY'S ELECTION AND REALIZE  THE VOTERS REALLY DO HAVE THE LAST WORD.

DOES GOOSE CREEK HAVE TWO MAYORS?

Could it be possible that the City of Goose Creek really does have two mayors?  We all know about Mayor Heitzler,  who is supposedly a man of his word;  who is supposed to be a straight shooter;  who has the reputation of looking people in the eye and telling them only the truth.  This mayor was and is well known and, up until now, thought of only in the highest regard.  But, for many citizens in the area, the atmosphere surrounding this mayor has changed and soured over the last few days.   Some of these people question, "Is he, indeed, a man of his word?"  They wonder, "Is he really a straight shooter?"  And, most of all, they ponder, "Will this man look some of us straight in the face and tell us the most egregious lies?"

GE&P has a theory, of course.  We think that Mayor Heitzler could possible have an "Evil Twin" that he doesn't even know about.  This "Evil Twin" has managed to keep himself secreted away until just lately and this "Evil Twin" has gone on a rampage of very reprehensible activities aimed at tarnishing the reputation of the real mayor.

First, the "Evil Twin" attended the Berkeley County Republican Breakfast Club meeting on June 2, 2012, masquerading as Mayor Heitzler.  (Where the real mayor was during this time is unknown.)  The "Evil Twin" proceeded to give a very impressive speech outlining the successes achieved by the City of Goose Creek over the last year.  After this speech, the "Evil Twin" mingled with the crowd.  The "Evil Twin" engaged in conversations with many of the candidates and elected officials who were in attendance.

After the meeting, the "Evil Twin" tarried outside the meeting hall, continuing to participate in conversations about local races and local elected officials.  This was when the "Evil Twin" engaged in some activities that might eventually cause the real mayor some difficulty.  The "Evil Twin" even cozied up to the challenger in the County Council District 3 race.  The "Evil Twin" explained to all in the group that, since Goose Creek operates on a non-partisin system,  he could not actively support the challenger in this race but, he promised not to do anything to harm the challenger either.  Did that "Evil Twin" really make all those derogatory remarks about the incumbent in that race?  Did he really refer to Dan Davis as a "little dictator"?  You'll have to ask the seven people in that group, including yours truly, who were listening to the "Evil Twin".

Then, just last week, the "Evil Twin" struck, again, on another issue.  The RINO Hunters Club put up only ONE "issue" sign in Goose Creek.  That sign criticized Councilman Call's voting record because he supported the closing of the BC Satellite office .  The group had put up small RINO signs beside every Bob Call sign in the city. Within hours, their ONE large sign had been removed.   The Code Enforcement Officer explained that it was against Goose Creek Sign Ordinance to erect any political signs within any Right Of Way within the City of Goose Creek. Be aware, there was a Call political sign of the same dimensions within feet of the sign in question.  After the argument about the positioning of the sign fizzled because of the presence of the Call sign, the next explanation from the Code Enforcement Officer from Goose Creek was that the anti-Call sign did not qualify as a "political sign".  He explained, in order for a sign to be considered a "political sign", it had to say "Elect Whomever to Whatever Office".   (such as "Call for County Council", maybe?)  According to this officer, if someone put up a sign that said, "Bob Call Voted Himself a Raise, Twice", he would not consider that sign a "political" sign and would order that it should be removed. (Are we getting the picture?)

Originally, the Code Enforcement Officer said HE HAD TAKEN THE SIGN DOWN HIMSELF.  By the end of this exchange, he said he didn't know what had happened to the sign and that, "if anyone was interested, they should contact the Goose Creek Police".  When an attempt was made to point out the discrepancy in his statements, he hung up the phone.  As all would agree, it was time to contact the head man for some justice.  Rats, this call was intercepted by none other than the "Evil Twin".

Before the situation could be properly outlined, the "Evil Twin" interrupted by saying that it was illegal to place any signs within any Right of Way within the City of Goose Creek.  When it was pointed out that many of Bob Call's signs were located within the Rights of Way all over town, the "Evil Twin" said, "Well, maybe Mr. Call has permission to have his signs there."  The "Evil Twin" was asked, "How could Mr. Call go about receiving permission to violate the law?"  Then the "Evil Twin" said, "He could get permission from the owner of the land adjacent to the Right of Way."  (Are you as confused as we are?)  He went on to insist that, even in the County, anyone wanting to erect a political sign along the road has to get SIGNED permission from the owner of the land adjacent to the Right of Way in question.  (By the way, the Code Enforcement Officials from Berkeley County strongly disagree with his statement and insist there is no such requirement.)

When asked why ONE differing sign was targeted by Goose Creek when Bob Call has signs all over town that violate the Ordinance, the "Evil Twin" said the City only removes signs when complaints are received.  When an attempt was made to issue formal complaints about all the violating Call signs, the "Evil Twin" became obviously irritated.  He said, if there is any proof that Mr. Call did not have permission from the adjacent land owners to erect his signs, he would consider removing them.  (So the "Evil Twin" thinks it's OK for someone to break the law as long as they have permission from whomever?)The "Evil Twin" displayed absolutely no professionalism and stated he did not have any more time to devote to this issue and hung up the phone.

The handling of this sign issue was very confusing at first, but, as with most things, time answers all questions.  Our answer came on Friday when we learned that a letter was being circulated, supposedly signed by Mayor Heitzler.  This letter was an open endorsement of none other than Bob Call.  But, don't be fooled.  It is possible that this letter was really forged by the "Evil Twin" with the diabolical  intent to convince the public (falsely, of course) that the real mayor is a two faced, back stabbing, double dealing, bald faced liar.

Now before anyone gets the wrong idea about our point, we firmly believe that anyone should be free to endorse the candidate of their choice; just don't lie about it.  Could it be the "Evil Twin" has actually struck, again?  There is no way that we believe anyone would even consider that a duly elected official would use the power of their office to illegally interfere with an election.  Right?  Right.  Neither do we believe that the real mayor would even consider perpetrating such an obvious fraud on the members of the BCRPBC.  He's far too smart to think he could, in the long run, get away with such a double dealing trick.

BAD, BAD, EVIL TWIN.

GUEST POST

As chairman of the Goose Creek 9-12 project, I have been trying to invite all candidates, (Republican and Democrat) up for election in Berkeley County, to our June 7 meeting. We have offered them 2 minutes at the start of the meeting to tell us who they are and why we should vote for them. I tell them there will be no time for Q & A, and they are free to either leave after they speak or to stay for the entire meeting. I also make it absolutely clear all candidates will be treated with the utmost respect.

Last week I attempted to invite Berkeley County District # 3 Councilman, Mr. Robert O. Call Jr. to our meeting as he is up for re-election. I used his email address posted on the County web page. The invitation came back. He is the only candidate I was not able to contact. I arrived early for the County Council meeting on May 29 for the purpose of inviting Mr. Call personally. He did not show up until a couple minutes after the meeting was called to order. Thinking he may be in a hurry to leave after the meeting before I had a chance to speak with him, I scribbled out an invitation during council's executive session.

After the meeting adjourned I ask a member of the Clerk's office to make me a copy of my hand written invitation for my records. I then approached Mr. Call and attempted to invite him to our meeting. He would not even let me finish speaking and turned his back when I tried to hand him the invitation, refusing to take it. Councilman Jack Schurlknight was standing near Mr. Call and ask me if we ran our meetings like the Berkeley County GOP Breakfast Club. Not fully understanding what he was asking, I told him we used Roberts Rules of Order. I ask Mr. Call once more if he would take the invitation and read it. He refused. At that point, I placed it on his seat at council and left the room.

Before I left the building, I realized what Councilman Schurlknight had really meant by his question. I found him leaving the assembly room and attempted to answer his question. I tried to tell him about all candidates being treated with the utmost respect. He completely and intentionally ignored me, nearly running into me as he barged past .

Neither Mr. Call nor Mr. Schurlknight serve in my district but they are accountable ( or at least they should be) to all the Berkeley County citizens. What gives them the right to be rude and disrespectful to me . Although I disagree with them on most issues, I have never treated them with such disrespect. I am especially upset with Mr. Schurlknight. He injected himself into a conservation that had nothing to do with him and was, then, very rude to me.

I can only imagine how Mr. Call expects to win reelection! He refuses invitations to speak to the citizens of Berkeley County at public forums. He even denies citizens the opportunity to speak with him at County Council meetings. As a "Republican Reformer", one would think he would at least occasionally attend a GOP event. He must be very confident of his reelection probabilities. His signs say "a name you can trust". Well, I suppose we will have to "Trust" Mr. Call because he has certainly shown he is not interested in meeting with or even speaking to us. What exactly is a " Republican Reformer" anyway, Mr. Call ? Guess we are expected to reelect you first and then we will find out ?!

Jeff Reuer, Chairman, Goose Creek 9-12 Project